Interest in Silius Italicus has grown considerably over the past decade, particularly in Anglophone countries, where articles, chapters and book-length studies on the Punica have been published at an unprecedented rate. With L.'s commentary on Punica 7, this trend moves into the sphere of the scholarly commentary. For the past 20–25 years Silianists have been well served by F. Spaltenstein's two-volume French commentary (Commentaire des Punica de Silius Italicus, 1–8 [1986], 9–17 [1990]), but, for the most part, have had to make do without commentaries on individual books. The deficiency is especially apparent in English, where commentaries have been difficult to obtain (being masters theses or dissertations) and/or cover only parts of books. The situation is different in other languages, where there are commentaries on Books 6 (German), 8 (Italian) and 14 (Dutch), and even when commentaries on individual books are lacking, help can be found in studies that practically function as narrative commentaries; in particular several German monographs from the 1980s, which are devoted to specific books (or parts of books). Even so, there is no commentary or study exclusively devoted to Book 7, and L.'s commentary, therefore, not only should meet the needs of an appreciative readership (and a growing Anglophone one), but importantly fills a gap in the scholarship.
L.'s commentary begins with a lengthy introduction (about 100 pages), which is divided into five parts. The first covers Silius' life and is one of the best treatments of the topic. I would have liked, however, fuller discussion of Pliny's seemingly disparaging assessment: scribebat carmina maiore cura quam ingenio (Ep. 3.7.5); after all, as L. points out in the preface (p. vii), ‘the literary skill cultivated by Callimachus and his Roman admirers is effectively illustrated by the complex web of poetic allusion with which Silius underpins the narrative of Punica 7’, and there may be good reason, therefore, to revise our reading of Pliny's use of cura here or, perhaps, to question his literary judgement more broadly.
The second part discusses Silius' relation to literary predecessors, including Livy and Polybius, Homer, Ennius, Virgil, Ovid, Lucan, and to his Flavian epic contemporaries, Statius and Valerius Flaccus. The Virgil section is particularly impressive, in which L. identifies three pastoral ‘interludes’ in Punica 7, ‘each of which has a particular affinity with a different book of Virgil's Georgics’ (p. xxxviii): the myth of Falernus with Georgic 2, Hannibal's conflagration of Roman plough-oxen with Georgic 3 and Proteus' prophecy with the conclusion of Georgic 4. In doing so L. sets forth a new way of reading these episodes: ‘Together Punica 7's two contrasting strands, military and pastoral, reflect the ambivalent message found in Virgil's Georgics: his praise for both the valour of the heroes born and bred on Italian soil and the good fortune of those who cultivate the land, untempted by overseas conquests’ (p. xxxix). L.'s discussion of other literary models is sometimes thin, but this is, to a certain extent, unavoidable as their influence may not be as prominent in Book 7 as in other books (e.g. Homer), is otherwise only sparsely evident in the epic (e.g. Ennius), or has not yet been thoroughly studied (e.g. Statius). The attention L. gives to the Fasti (in the Ovid section) and to the Hyrieus story in Fasti 5, in particular, is disproportionate, however. To be sure, the Hyrieus story is a model for the Falernus aetiology in Punica 7, but, as L.'s notes on that episode in the commentary show, the Philemon and Baucis tale in Metamorphoses 8 is quite influential too, to say nothing of many other parallels with Ovid's epic (see below).
Section 3 discusses the major protagonists in the book, Fabius and Hannibal, and does well to orient the reader within the traditions upon which Silius drew for his portrayal of them. Section 4 offers an analysis of Silius' diction, word-order, use of rhetorical devices, and use of imagery (aspects of the poet's Latinity to which L. gives due attention throughout the commentary as well), a brief study of ‘epic rhetoric’ through an analysis of Fabius' and Hannibal's speeches in the book, and a treatment of ‘poetic uarietas’, focussing on scenes of hand-to-hand combat. The introduction concludes with an excellent overview of the transmission and reception of the Punica.
L.'s text is that of J. Delz (1987), as is the apparatus criticus. When matters of textual criticism arise, L. usually sides with Delz, but entertains reasonable alternatives. The Latin-less reader will be disappointed that there is no English translation, but those who use the commentary for translation assistance will find L.'s paraphrases of sections of the text quite helpful, and L. does a good amount of translating in the notes themselves.
The commentary is very readable. L. judiciously avoids the ‘grapeshot’ approach of some commentators, who offer insufficiently terse exegesis to which they append long lists of comparanda, whose applicability is often unclear. L.'s notes are, rather, focussed, finely crafted, short studies in themselves; some may find this approach verbose, but I appreciate the lucid, full interpretations of such a coherent and reliable ‘voice’. I was particularly impressed by L.'s sensitivity to tone, often as it reflects Silius' characterisation of Fabius and Hannibal. Also impressive is L.'s learning; she draws on a wide array of source materials (textual, material, epigraphic), and exhibits a firm grasp of geography, religion, prosopography and textual criticism, to name just a few. As for Silius' models and sources, L. carefully charts parallels with and divergences from Livy's account of events and is ever mindful of Silius' debt to Virgil.
But L. is less successful in identifying parallels with other texts, especially post-Augustan ones. There are several parallels with Lucan that might have been identified, but are not: for example Pun. 7.1 = BC 1.496–7, Pun. 7.116 = BC 1.228, Pun. 7.265 = BC 2.129, Pun. 7.481 = BC 1.648, Pun. 7.498 = BC 2.226, Pun. 7.643–4 = BC 6.29–30, Pun. 7.742 = BC 1.477. Statius too gets less attention than he deserves. In Proteus' account of the judgement of Paris, for example, the description of Minerva (Pun. 7.460–1) has a close parallel in Statius' Deidamia (Ach. 1.299–300), which goes unmentioned, and although in nn. 470–1 L. contrasts Paris' reaction to Venus with his reaction in Ach. 2.54, she otherwise fails to notice parallels between Ach. 2.50–1 and Pun. 7.437–40 in the notes. It is true, as L. concedes (p. lviii), that more work needs to be done on Silius' relation to Statius, but one would think that a commentary such as this would be the very place in which to address that need. Of works of Augustan poetry Ovid's Metamorphoses is generally undervalued. Among overlooked parallels, I note the following: Pun. 7.74 = Met. 15.486, Pun. 7.121–2 = Met. 13.110, Pun. 7.157 = Met. 2.730, Pun. 7.180 = Met. 8.646, Pun. 7.360 = Met. 14.425, Pun. 7.424 = Met. 3.38, Pun. 7.656 = Met. 7.841 (cf. Ars. 1.169).
Clearly, L. has taken to heart the Callimachean dictum mega biblion, mega kakon; the commentary is learned, carefully researched and thoughtfully assembled, but it is not especially long (about 230 pages). I respect L.'s choice in this regard, but, as suggested above, it might have been longer, as there are points where a wider view of Silius' models and parallels with contemporary authors would have been appreciated.
The volume concludes with a bibliography, a ‘further reading’ section, an index uerborum and an index nominum et rerum.
